 PUCAY- with title.

Basis: Native Title/ Ancestral Land

Cruz vs. Secretary, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2005
Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of lands in public
domain.

 MANNY VILLA- no title

(Rule on Prescription cannot be applied.)

 ALIMBA- no title.
De Ocampo vs. Arlos, G.R. No. 135527, October 19, 2000
Under the Public Land Act as amended, only titles to alienable and ds of
the public domain may be judicially confirmed. Unless a public land is
reclassified and declared as such, occupation thereof in the concept of
owner, no matter how long ago, cannot confer ownership or possessory
rights.

 PHILIP KATE- with title. Basis: Prescription. In possession of the land since 1950
HEIRS OF MARCELINA ARZADON-CRISOLOGO v. AGRIFINA RAÑON,
G.R. No. 171068, September 5, 2007

“The Civil Code requires, for acquisitive prescription of real property, 30 years
of uninterrupted possession if the same is wanting in good faith and without a just
title.”

“Prescription is another mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over
immovable property.23 It is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and under
conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept
of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse.24 Possession is open
when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine.25 It is
continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or
occasional;26 exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion
over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit;27 and
notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the
public or the people in the neighborhood.28 The party who asserts ownership by
adverse possession must prove the presence of the essential elements of
acquisitive prescription.

Article 1117 of the Civil Code is instructive:

 Art. 1117. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be
ordinary or extraordinary.

Articles 1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code fix the periods of possession,29 which
provide:

Art. 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired
by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.

Art. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe
through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of
title or of good faith.

From the foregoing, it can be gleaned that acquisitive prescription of real rights
may be ordinary or extraordinary.30 Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires
possession of things in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law;
without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be
extraordinary in character.31 Regarding real or immovable property, ordinary
acquisitive prescription requires a period of possession of ten years, while
extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires an uninterrupted adverse
possession of thirty years.32”

 RYAN SAYA- with title (pero during the time na binili nya, hindi pa owned ni Kate?)
a. Prescription; or
b. HEIRS OF MARCELINA ARZADON-CRISOLOGO v. AGRIFINA
RAÑON, G.R. No. 171068, September 5, 2007

“Moreover, respondents’ payment of realty taxes made with the knowledge

and consent of petitioners and went unchallenged for a number of years,
indubitably show their positive claim as owners of the property. While it is
true that by themselves tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation
purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they become strong
evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof
of actual possession of the property. It is only where payment of taxes is
accompanied by actual possession of the land covered by the tax declaration
that such circumstance may be material in supporting a claim of ownership.”

c. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V EAST SILVERLANE REALTY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATON, G.R. 186961, FEBRUARY 20, 2012
 “It is a settled rule that albeit tax declarations and realty tax payment of
property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are
good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least
constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of
property for taxation purposes manifests not only ones sincere and honest
desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against
the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute
needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens ones bona
fideclaim of acquisition of ownership.”
 JAVIER- w/ title, Basis: Prescription; or can apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title
 TAN- w/ Title. Basis: Buyer in good faith.

In the case of Heirs of Gregorio vs CA, the Supreme Court held that a purchaser in good faith is
one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest
in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of
another person’s claim. The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value
lies upon one who asserts that status. It is axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless
convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to
sufficiently prove such allegation. Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith
prevails. Without a clear and persuasive substantiation of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in
favor of respondents stands. As a general rule, every person dealing with registered land may safely
rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will no way oblige him to
go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. The rights of innocent third
persons who relied on the correctness of the certificate of title and acquired rights over the
property covered thereby cannot be disregarded and the courts cannot order the cancellation of
such certificate for that would impair or erode public confidence in the torrens system of land
registration.

Bernardo Tan, in his case, there is no notice that some other person has a right to or interest
in the property that he bought from Bert Sacla. The discovery that the certificate of title covers a
portion of land occupied by Andry Javier only came after he already bought the property. He, rely on
the correctness of the Certificate of Title of the vendor, Bert Sacla. Under the law, a buyer who relies
on the correctness of the certificate of title, the law will no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate
to determine the condition of the property.

With this effect, Bernardo Tan relying on the correctness of the Certificate of Title is entitled
to the subject property being a purchaser in good faith.
